So said Elton John, and he's getting some attention for the "gay" part. I think the other parts of the statement are interesting too. For example, I don't normally think of Jesus as distinguished by super-intelligence. Was he great at math? That's something I've never wondered about. It's good of Sir Elton to remind us of Jesus's compassion and forgiveness, and if he likes to think of Jesus — who lived with a group of men — as gay, what's the harm in that?

Sounds like Elton has an idealized view of Jesus, not that there's anything wrong with that.

The gay issue is the easy one to argue over, so I'm going to skip that for being too obvious a ploy.

"super-intelligent"

It's interesting that your first response to super-intelligence is math. You're so modern, Althouse! A true child of the Renaissance.

In that culture and era math was not the most important sign of intelligence. Philosophy was king! Among the Jews, theology truly was the queen of the sciences, with Scripture memorization and memorization of other teachers a key part.

Remember the 12 year old Jesus in the Temple, who amazed the teachers with his knowledge of the Law and the Prophets. The Gospels also show him to be a very difficult debate opponent, hard to beat.

I don't normally think of Jesus as distinguished by super-intelligence.

Jesus is understood, by Christians at least, to be Lord, i.e. God. And God is omniscient -- all-knowing.

Moreover, the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, vv. 1-5, 14 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . .And the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth."

In the original Greek, the word "Word" is Logos, and it is understood to refer to Jesus. Thus, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. . . ."

It is from the word "logos" that we get the word "logic," and the Logos is also understood to mean "Creative Reason."

The Christian perspective is that Jesus is not merely distinguished by "super-intelligence," He is intelligence. He is the Logos, He is Reason Itself.

(And while He most certainly is also joy and true happiness, to say that He is "gay" is laughable.)

I think it is clear that Christ was ferociously, off-the-top-of-the-charts intelligent.

As was previously pointed out, there are numerous mentions of the teenaged Christ amazing the learned with His teachings. He was a riveting and engaging enough teacher to attract huge crowds... huge enough even to threaten the Sanhedrin. From all accounts, he debated circles around them.

Many geniuses master one discipline, or a fraction of one discipline. Jesus fundamentally changed the way people perceive God, forever.

Look at who His followers were. The apostle Paul was a highly regarded learned man of his time - who had achieved great reknown among the Jewish theocratic establishment. He left behind a large body of writing that firmly establishes him as possessed of a keen and fiery intellect. And he was converted by the arguments of those who knew Jesus. (I don't think a heat-stroke-influenced vision in the desert would be enough for a guy like Saul of Tarsus.)

I think it is clear that Jesus was a towering moral genius, even laying aside the question as to His divinity. You don't have to be a Christian to recognize that the mensch had some candlepower going on upstairs.

Jason: We also know that Jesus preached that one who lusted after a woman had already committed adultry in his heart.

Homosexuality is about falling in love with men instead of women. Lust doesn't necessarily have to be involved, or can be sublimated in different sorts of ways. If you ever read 1001 Arabian Nights there are plenty of examples of men finding other men beautiful and then trying to get them to marry their daughters. It's a little creepy, but entirely within the bounds of Mosaic Law.

If Jesus never really existed, then the folks who made him up -- as well as making up the enormous body of moral and theological and philosophical teachings that are attributed to this fictional Jesus -- are undeniably among the greatest geniuses of all time.

For some reason, some homosexuals think that if they try to promulgate the idea that just about every prominent person in history was homosexual, it validates their cause. It would appear it does the exact opposite.

The Crack Emcee said...

...

Because we have no - no - proof he ever walked the earth, and the scourge of our time is people continuing to spout ignorant shit about things that don't exist.

The Romans left a record of His execution. We know He existed and a number of people collected His life story and pronouncements from those who knew Him. Sorry.

WV "lapsogg" What happens when your buddy spills his beer at the ball game.

So, he was super-intelligent, but had trouble fitting into society and related poorly to members of the opposite sex. . Hey! Jesus was an Aspie!

Ahem. Anyway, I expect Jesus was more or less asexual, given that sexual relations would've only complicated His purpose in this world. But if Elton John wants to claim He was gay, and in doing so bring attention to a very real and current human injustice, then I doubt Jesus will hold it against him.

Jesus was perfect at math. Hard to do better. And, he was omniscient, so he was not only incredibly smart, he was the smartest person ever to live. That's Jesus. I don't see Mary M. as a fag hag either.

You see, that's the story. Stick to the script. Anyone else is not Jeus.

I may be stating the obvious, but the gay part presumably comes from the fact that he was never portrayed in the Bible as having been married. Of course, as we found out in the Da Vinci Code, that was because the Gospel of Mary was banned from the Christian cannon in the 4th century, despite the fact that she (Mary Magdalene) was actually Jesus' wife.

And, no, I don't buy Brown there, and I doubt if he really believes that. But not being Catholic, I am not wedded to the idea that Jesus could not have been married, nor that his mother was a perpetual virgin (but rather I think the best evidence we have is that he had 4 brothers and at least two sisters from her).

And one reason that I question Jesus never having been married comes from a Jewish girlfriend from when I was in Business School. She pointed out that at the time, marriages were typically arranged, and being the eldest son of a middle class craftsman with 4 younger brothers, they likely could not have married until he did.

But then, as gays may point out, Jesus may have been gay, and the Disciple he loved may have been male, and that was what was being alluded to with those references.

But the problem there I think is that the Jewish establishment of that time likely would not have accepted that, and we likely would have heard something about his sexual orientation. Maybe.

The interesting thing is that if he was made up by people in order to teach love and morality - the act of their deception betrays their morality (LIES!) and love (Lies are not love).

It's a conundrum, alright. I suppose there are people who make up lies in order to teach a higher truth, but (and this is my opinion), they generally aren't that believable or admirable, especially when the lies become known.

Picking up on what Bruce Hayden and Former Law Student wrote, I remember a theory offered by one of my religion professors, starting with two pieces of evidence. First, the title "Rabbi" would not typically have been used unless a man was married. Second, if a wedding had a catering problem, a guest would not normally be consulted.

Jesus of Nazareth did whatever his Father told him. His Father spoke into being the perfectly balanced Universe that is shown in the Hubbel pics and continues to hold it all together. The math needed for that is incomprehensible to us. Being love and being light, He has also willed to encode knowledge and math into his revelations to men. Jesus did not need to do all of those creator God jobs while he was walking and talking among men. He arrived incarnated as a man to spend his time healing the sick, driving out demons , and teaching what was encoded into the all of the scriptures about Himself, all with a mission statement to set free the captives (to sin) and heal the broken hearted (from the results of generations of sin) and to accept the heavy burden of governing ungovernable men. As Forest Gump said, smart is as smart does.

The trouble is with the tradition that he was single goes extremely far back.

And that's interesting because there's no real reason for that tradition to develop. Like it has been said, being married is the expectation. It would have been perfectly in line with the whole narrative for him to be married. Moses was married, after all.

However, Elijah was not. Samuel was not, I don't think. John the Baptist was not married.

So, there's a tradition in Jewish prophets for single unmarried teachers. This would not have been common, but it's certainly not so impossible as to assume Jesus' marital state based simply on what people called him.

I have heard other explanations of Jesus' role at the wedding, so to add that one to the list is also just basically starting with the conclusion and finding some room of support (I'm away from home now, so can't look any up). Again, there was no inherent reason not to mention it was his wedding, as his being single was a change in the general tradition. Peter, we are told, had a mother in law, and other disciples were certainly married.

Jason - "I think it is clear that Christ was ferociously, off-the-top-of-the-charts intelligent.

As was previously pointed out, there are numerous mentions of the teenaged Christ amazing the learned with His teachings. He was a riveting and engaging enough teacher to attract huge crowds... huge enough even to threaten the Sanhedrin. From all accounts, he debated circles around them."

We really don't know. The thing about pre-adolescent CHrist Wow-ing all the scholars with his supermind then disappearing back into his daily sawdust generation and wood joinery sounds like some tale invented to puff up Jesus's legacy. It only appears in one Gospel.Perhaps the best evidence of his "smarter than Thou" creds was his teachings lasted, and he attracted very smart men like Luke, John, Saul, and Judas as apostles.That he was betrayed by Judas and helpless before the Romans suggests Jesus was NOT all-powerful, and all-knowing. We are all familiar with devoted followers defending every sign of a flaw in their worshipped person as actually indication of genius. (Newtons retreat into alchemy and religious claptrap is actually further proof of his genius, Bush blundering into a morass in Iraq was actually proof The American Churchill "had Al Qaeda just where he wanted them!".Of course, if he truly was an all-powerful God, he could be as smart or as stupid as he wanted to be. It just wouldn't matter. Just as Warren Buffet can stay in a cheap Holiday Inn room and no one in the know - thinks that shows Warren Buffet is not a Lord of the Universe.

*************As for the homosexual movement to annoint verious great men and some women of history now long-dead as homosexual? It is pathetic. Sort of like Stalinist Russia's claim that everything invented had been invented by a Communist or by a Russian of long ago who would have been a communist if they could have been.Of course the homosexuals get mighty riled when their homo icons are dissed or criticized.Alexander was bi, and his relationship with Haephestus was destructive.Oscar Wilde was a convicted child molester (the rent boys case).Eleanor was just too ugly and into herself to keep FDR from straying, so she went Lez in frustration...Harvey Milk was a pederast.

Say any of those things and homosexuals claiming MLK, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Napoleon, etc were gay drop their agenda and do the "How-Dare-You!!" act on suggestions that Oscar, Eleanor, Harvey, or any other icon is less than an exemplary person and martyr to "The Cause".

Apparently few people here know who Jesus was and what he came to do, making claims that he wasn't all powerful because he was killed. Some may be blinded by the fact that he was a Jew, others by the worship of religion professors.Many reject him because they are weak and won't live by the Law. You either know Him or you don't. I'ts your choice.But some do the will of the Father at the same time rejecting " the sky god and his son".They are blessed, like Crack.

"It's good of Sir Elton to remind us of Jesus's compassion and forgiveness, and if he likes to think of Jesus — who lived with a group of men — as gay, what's the harm in that?"

None that I can see, but then again, my "personal truths" aren't tied up with my favorite performers' truths... or lies, for that matter.

Thing is, our politicians are now generally seen as "performers", and said group is more than able to affect my personal truth through legislation.

We might all be "under the big top" these days, but I would suggest we save the anger we might expend on an Elton John statement or a Tiger Woods' morality meltdown, and instead focus on those Washington DC clowns who seem to be calling the shots FOR us.

Bryan C., Jesus had no problem relating to women. They loved Him. He loved them. Remember the woman taken in adultery, the woman at the well, the Marys. It was women who bankrolled Him and His disciples. He had women around all the time.

Jason, if Paul had his conversion moment on the road to Damascus, who are you to decide that Paul needed to be converted by the disciples? He spent his three days blind and fasting. The road to Damascus was Paul's acceptance of the Lordship of Christ. Punto finale!

If Jesus was gay, He'd have said so. Since we have no record of that, either the sources lied or he was not gay. So, it seems to me, we have the choice of accepting the sources or not. That's not any different than the question of religious faith in the first place.

So, the next question is why only accept part of the bible, but not others? It seems awfully convenient to me.

It's good of Sir Elton to remind us of Jesus's compassion and forgiveness, and if he likes to think of Jesus — who lived with a group of men — as gay, what's the harm in that?

Galatians 1:6-9

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7)which is really not another; only there are some who are isturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

(8)But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

(9)As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

So if you mean apart from the harm of being accursed (that is anathema in the Greek) which is a person who ought to be detested or loathed! So you know other than that.

(Actually, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not just an important thing it is the MOST important thing. The Bible is clear (Hebrews 9:27) that we have one chance one life to choose to follow God. The Bible is further clear, that if you reject the word of God you cannot come to Salvation (Luke 16:30-31). So why distort the Bible the Word of God? Because it keeps people from the word of God. It was Satan's first deception (Hath God Indeed Said?) and it'll absolutely continue unto the end.

About Jesus personally and marriage, in the Gospels, He repeatedly refers to Himself as a bridegroom, and the Kingdom of God as a wedding feast.

And in his Letter to the Ephesians, Paul makes it explicit that Jesus does indeed have a bride -- the Church. Paul then quotes from the account of the creation of Eve from Genesis, "'For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:31-32)

Jesus is "married" to the Church, and the nature of this spousal union is (like any sacramental marriage) both (1) unitive and (2) fruitful, i.e. procreative. That is, Christ and the Church form One Body, and by this spousal communion with Christ, the Church, as a mother, bears children.

1) There is no serious doubt that Jesus did in fact exist. The only question is: was he divine? That, of course, is a purely theological question.

2) The Coptic scrolls containing the gospels of Mary and Phillip also exist, and they do indicate a possible romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but because we have only fragments, that too is a matter of pure speculation.

3) As far as I know, the New Testament nowhere suggests that Jesus' mother Mary was a perpetual virgin, only that she was a virgin at the time of His birth. Even that, however, may be the result of a translation error from the original as the word may be translated more simply as a "young girl" (who were often presumed to be virginal prior to marriage).

4) Being "gay" or "homosexual," carries the prerequisite that one must be interested in consummating that relationship with a sexual act - whether or not such consummation actually occurs. Simply preferring the company of men or being extremely close emotionally with another man wouldn't in any way meet the definition. I have yet to see any possible indication - other than his association with other men through his teaching career - that would lead any reasonable person to believe he harbored any romantic/sexual feelings toward other men - especially in light of the Old Testament's teachings on the subject and its subsequent whole incorporation into what became the Christian faith. One would believe that those passages would have been scrubbed from the "Old Testament" of Christianity if its founders knew Jesus to have been a homosexual.

5) Elton John betrays his own prejudices. He assumes that someone who is compassionate and super-intelligent must NECESSARILY be gay. He could not possibly be heterosexual as only gay men possess that trait. He views himself as such a person; therefore, if Jesus is such a person, then he must also be gay.

Jesus was the prince of peace, the first important philosopher of peace and tolerance in the modern world. When George W. Bush said that Jesus was his (Bush's) favorite political philosopher, idiots laughed. It was a profound and righteous statement, and I agreed with it. I'm not religious, but Jesus taught the right way to live.

From my Catholic point of view Jesus could theoretically have been gay. Being gay or experiencing same sex attraction is not sinful in itself. Having homosexual relations is a sinful act. Sinful the same way lying is sinful, or adultery (or any sex outside of marriage), or having false gods or idols (like money, sex, drugs), or any of a raft of other grave sins. Masturbation is a sin of equal gravity to committing a homosexual act. Since Jesus was fully God as well as fully man he experienced the same animal passions we experience. The message he brought is that we are to resist our passions and not be enslaved by them.

Jesus' celibacy is not something I've spent a lot of time digging into as it doesn't particularly interest me. My quick browse through the Catechism failed to turn up anything specific on the subject but if I were a betting man I'd bet that capital-T Catholic Tradition would hold that Jesus was celibate and heterosexual. There is a lot of good information on the God/man nature of Jesus starting around paragraph 470.

As far as the intellect part, God is infinite and Jesus was fully God. Infinitely merciful, infinitely intelligent, transcending space and time. So yes, Jesus could have quoted pi down to the gazillionth decimal point. What he was here to do and explain is something much more difficult to 'get' than mathematics.

He didn't select lawyers, doctors or scribes as disciples. He selected fishermen. There is a different kind of intelligence in play here.

Now, off to Mass! Big day today, the Rites of Sending and Election for catechumens.

Reading the comments , it appears that many have meditated upon scripture and been blessed by it, including Elton John. The person and character traits of Jesus is Elton John's issue . That person was the measure of a complete manhood in submission to and fully one with his Father who had also given men the Torah of Moses. But instead of condemning and attacking sinners, women and gay persons under that Law, he came to love and accept them. No wonder Elton thinks Jesus may have been a gay man...who else could love and accepts sinners, women and gays that way? So IMO Elton's point of view is genuine, and not meant to insult Jesus. The Jesus who sacrificed Himself to empower our adoption as son's of God into a new family did that fully intending to include sinners, women and gays as newly made righteous and as equally loved as Jesus was Himself loved by his Father. That personality needs meeting. If you can get a good modern translation, such as J B Phillips, and read thru the Gospel of Mark in one sitting, I expect that the Holy Spirit, who authored that scripture, will introduce you scholars to Jesus's personality. At least you will then know the kind of man that you are talking about, as Elton John apparently does.

Jim said:4) Being "gay" or "homosexual," carries the prerequisite that one must be interested in consummating that relationship with a sexual act - whether or not such consummation actually occurs. Simply preferring the company of men or being extremely close emotionally with another man wouldn't in any way meet the definition.

Oh, thank goodness! I was about to receive a terrible revelation about the NFL.

I don't agree with the recent trend of depicting historical figures to be gay, i.e. Lincoln, and now even Jesus.

The teachings of Jesus and his disciples are plain enough; homosexuality was condemned as a sin.

There seem to be quite a few prominent homosexuals, most notably, Andrew Sullivan, who reject the plain and simple words of the Gospels and the Epistles. It is understandable that those raised as Christians, who are tempted by homosexuality, would want to revise and obscure the clear meanings of Biblical texts, to assuage their guilty consciences.

Modern society is remarkably tolerant of homosexuality, so I don't understand the need to remake Christianity into a philosophy that accepts and even celebrates this lifestyle. The promiscuity of Sullivan et al would be sinful regardless of its homosexual nature.

Why not just embrace the message of the Gospels, that we are all sinners, but that Jesus' sacrifice in and of itself is sufficient to make us acceptable to God? I am able to acknowledge my sinfulness and yet still accept the free gift of grace through faith. It would be arrogant on my part to assume that somehow, by my own actions, I could gain God's favor.

DaveW shares what he represents as a "Catholic" perspective, that Jesus could have been gay; but that is probably something he picked up from gay or effeminate Catholic priests produced by seminaries controlled by the lavendar mafia in the 2nd half of the 20th century. The attitude towards homosexuality is also a 20th century invention.

I say that as a Catholic whose priest is very swishy but godly and a good pastor.

Now...Joseph and his gay pride coat of many colors...that's a pride parade right there. However, he had to be bi, really, since he had sons.

"I don't know why people are so cruel"--British parenting styles are very harsh. I know, I survived it. It makes me cringe when I hear my cousins speak that way to their children. People in England are cruel, Sir Elton, because there is a strong undertow of cruelty in English culture.

As far as I know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. He spoke against immorality.

Homosexuality as a sexual orientation? No. But the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, in the sense of gender identity, is only one or two hundred years old. Homosexual acts? Not directly. But He was repeatedly asked if his coming meant that Jewish law was no longer relevant. To this he said, "I have not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it," And "'Til heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot, not one tittle of the Law shall pass away."

Homosexual acts between men were clearly included as capital offenses in Mosaic law. Christ affirmed Mosaic law in its entirety. You cannot escape that fact.

Actually my perspective on homosexuality comes straight out of the Catechism graphs 2357-2359.

Homosexual behavior is gravely sinful. As are the other examples I used. It doesn't matter if you fall from grace through masturbation, adultery, homosexual behavior or any of the other grave sins. Grave matter is grave matter. All end in the same place.

fls, Paul described homosexuality as a consequence of immoral thought, not as a punishment for sin.

from Romans 1:

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Why would homosexuality be described as a "shameful lust" if it was condoned by God?

I personally do not condemn homosexuals any more than I would condemn practicing alcoholics. However I don't think that the Bible condones drunkenness, nor does it condone homosexual behavior. We all "like sheep, have gone astray" and are therefore in need of God's grace and forgiveness. It is not necessary for anyone to redefine sinful behavior as righteous. Such redefinition is an arrogant assertion that one has no need for God's grace and forgiveness.

In Romans, Paul does not condemn homosexuality as a sin. He clearly describes homosexuality as the punishment for sin, not sin itself.

Hogwash.

Here is the passage in question: 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

If homosexual acts were not sinful, then why did Paul describe them, clearly as "shameful" "indecent" and "perversion?" Why did he refer to the acts as "sexual impurity?" "unnatural?" Why does he refer to them as "degrading their bodies" with one another?

You couldn't possibly pick a worse book to illustrate your argument. Paul in the Book of Romans clearly condemns homosexual behavior for its own sake, and not just as an outgrowth of some other kinds of sinfulness.

I mean, really, fls. Did you even bother to read the passage? Or are you just passing on something you heard one libtard tell another? Are you passing along some False Gospel of Teh Ghey and trying to pull a fast one, hoping nobody notices?

fls you are being overly literal again. Of course the crab feed nights are sinful by the Old Testament definition. However the grace afforded us by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross enables us to live free of condemnation. The fact of forgiveness does not negate the offense.

There is simply no reason to redefine sin or righteousness. There is "no one righteous, not even one." The grace of God to which we are entitled through faith applies to every sin, not just the ones that are politically incorrect. So there is no reason to attempt to justify sinful lifestyle choices. That is the motivation that I don't understand. There is nothing to be gained, it is pointless.

The argument is Paul's, not mine. Kindly criticize him if you don't follow his logic:

If You know Godbut do not glorify Godand do not give thanks to Godthenyour thinking becomes futileyour foolish hearts become darkYou become foolsYou exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.And -- God gives you over to sexual impurity for the degrading of your bodies with one another.

Now Paul thought that last point was so important he repeated it:

If you exchange the truth of God for a lieandworship and serve created things rather than the CreatorThenGod will give you over to shameful lusts.Your women will exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. Your men will abandon natural relations with women and become inflamed with lust for one another. Your men will commit indecent acts with other men, and receive in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

In English, perversion means turning away from what is good. The sinners in Romans deliberately turned away from the ultimate in what is good -- God -- by exchanging the worship of images of mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles for worshiping God.

why homosexual activity is described as "shameful" if it is not in itself a sin.

Lust and sex acts are shameful regardless of sexual orientation. The notion of shame and decency revolves around the idea that sex should be kept private. (Are you decent? She has no shame, letting her boobs hang out of her dress.) The idol worshippers here are not worrying about shame or decency; they are going right at it.

you are still evading my question regarding the plain meaning of the word "shameful". In the Bible, sex within the context of marriage between one man and one woman is never described that way. I only assert that sex in any other context is defined in the Bible as sin, regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants.

And though you may tire of my repeating myself, I don't believe that homosexual activities are any worse than other acts prohibited by Biblical law.

I would refer you to my previous comment, in which I stated, "There is simply no reason to redefine sin or righteousness. There is 'no one righteous, not even one.' The grace of God to which we are entitled through faith applies to every sin, not just the ones that are politically incorrect."

Omaha1, I've mostly stayed out of the discussion, but it's hard to let that statement pass. Homosexual acts are called "abomination" (to'eivah) in the Bible, and carry the most severe punishment there, stoning. There is no penalty prescribed at all for mere promiscuity.

"...and if he likes to think of Jesus — who lived with a group of men — as gay, what's the harm in that?"

It's the same harm as liking to think that Bert and Ernie are gay.

Forget that this is "Jesus" and forget the religious offense involved... there really is harm, as I see it, in relegating ALL close male relationships to homosexual love or homo-eroticism or whatever else. It's stupid and it's harmful.

It takes away examples and patterns of connection between men that help boys understand ways to relate to boys. (Or girls relate to girls, etc.)

The bible says that someone might have such a relationship with a friend that he is willing to die for that friend (and then goes on to explain that Christ was different in that he was willing to die for those who were not his friends.)

Our whole society is losing the template of friendship. It has entirely lost, already, the template for platonic love.